Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Your on A USA politics thread freeing giving your wrong opinion and your retort is "you're not American". How nice!

Quote:

And now you're moving the goalposts. How about you address the meaning of "value", which you were disputing a moment ago?

The statute talks about money or other things of value. Your point that it's not monetary is crap. The thing of value will have to be valued. If it already starts as free, you're going to have a tough go valuing information, especially when there is no authority to do so. Even more important since the information didn't materialise. You can be like WilliamSegar and wish it, but that doesn't get it done.

The Gore campaign was given the Bush campaign's debate prep book in 2000. They called the FBI.

It doesn't matter what actually happened. It's like Senate Republicans refusing to give Garland a hearing in an election year: I imagine Democrats would've done the same exact thing, which makes them the very worst kind of hypocrites (the hypothetical kind).

I had the same thought, but I considered it a relatively minor point - relative to the fact that a presidential candidate was urging a U.S. adversary to hack his opponent in hopes of uncovering (and sharing with the press) classified information. He wasn't joking, he meant it quite literally.

If Spicer keeps this up he may have to apply for unemployment insurance.

Quote:

Spicer contradicts emails, President on Trump Jr meeting

Washington (CNN)White House press secretary Sean Spicer contradicted President Donald Trump Monday when he insisted that a meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with a Russian lawyer in the months leading up to the election was about adoption policy.

In his first appearance at the White House briefing since June 26, Spicer repeated the same defense that Trump Jr. originally offered on July 8 when he was asked about the meeting -- that it was a nothing but "short introductory meeting ... about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago."

However, Trump Jr. later admitted he took the meeting because he was promised compromising information about Hillary Clinton when he publicly released his email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a publicist who helped set up the meeting.

Months ago, Trump stated that there was no collusion, but most recently, Trump Jr. threw cold water in his dad's face over his emails, which show that Trump Jr. attended a meeting that was intended to hand him dirt on Hillary Clinton by the Russians while he was part of the campaign and he didn't even report his Russian contacts to the FBI. In the aftermath, he sought to cover-up the meeting with Russians with lies after lies. Even some folks at Fox News seem to have had enough of Trump's lies.

Considering that multiple investigations are currently ongoing, let's see what else is revealed in the coming weeks and months.

If you are Putin and the Russians, which is how he was elected president despite losing the popular vote to Clinton. It was a mistake putting placing an unfit and incompetent Trump into the White House which shows in his record low approval ratings that continued to drop since January.

If you are Putin and the Russians, which is how he was elected president despite losing the popular vote to Clinton. It was a mistake putting placing an unfit and incompetent Trump into the White House which shows in his record low approval ratings that continued to drop since January.

Let me guess, the deep state have invested so much in war with Russia? Having a workable relationship must be very upsetting?

you're excuse of not being American means nothing with respect to ideology.

As you'd see if you bothered to participate in the forum in any capacity other than laughing at those who disagree with you on political matters, you'd see that I very often disagree with the left, here. So much so that I've been accused of being on the right several times.

Quote:

Give an example of money given for political dirt.

Are you now saying that you don't believe this sort of thing happens and at this point in your life you'd like to see examples? Are you saying that this'd be the first time you'd hear of it?

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

You said information is routinely exchanged for money. Since we're talking about political dirt, I assume you can show some examples of campaigns paying for political dirt?

Yes but before I spend any time and effort digging an example like this, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: you have never come across an example of this in your life, is that what you're saying? You doubt that information is sold for money, is that right?

__________________"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

Yes but before I spend any time and effort digging an example like this, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: you have never come across an example of this in your life, is that what you're saying? You doubt that information is sold for money, is that right?

You said information is routinely exchanged for money. Since we're talking about political dirt, I assume you can show some examples of campaigns paying for political dirt?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Yes but before I spend any time and effort digging an example like this, I want to make sure I understand this correctly: you have never come across an example of this in your life, is that what you're saying? You doubt that information is sold for money, is that right?

He's specifically talking about paying for political dirt. He repeated the phrase twice.

I must admit, no explicit examples come to mind. I've heard of people paying people to NOT provide political dirt. (Denny Hastert comes to mind.) I've heard of people given support and publicity for dishing political dirt that they were personally involved in. (A variety of invitations to speak for various people that accused Bill Clinton or Donald Trump of sexual harassment.) I can't recall an incident of actually paying for political dirt. I assume it happens, though. Did money change hands over that Access Hollywood tape?

I read it both times. Are you both saying that while, yes, you can solicit and pay for valuable information with money, you're not so sure about this specific sort of valuable information?

Don't make me laugh.

You read it both times, but you are still asking someone else (me) what it meant?

What struck me as very odd was that logger asked a fairly specific, easy to understand question, and you responded by saying the equivalent of "Are you really asking something else?"

As for what I am saying, which is something different from what logger is saying, I've already said it, and most people get it. There's no need to ask what I'm saying. You can just read it. To repeat myself, I am saying there is insufficient evidence publicly available to conclude that Donald Trump or his associates committed a crime by meeting with Natalia Selevnitskiya.

There was also some discussion of what constituted a "thing of value" for the purposes of a statute on campaign finance law, which I suppose may still interest some people. Anyone who finds it interesting can pursue it further.